§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Porte has consented to the recognition of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern as Hospodar of the Danubian Provinces. He remembered the Motion which was made by the hon. Member 1323 for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) some years ago, and he thought that an unfair endeavour had been made to turn that Motion to the disadvantage of the Government of Lord Palmerston. He (Mr. Darby Griffith) looked upon the whole thing as a mere party manœuvre, and as one totally unsuccessful. It was not from any want of confidence in the noble Lord the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that he put this question, for the declaration which the noble Lord made the other day must have given the greatest satisfaction to the House and the country. He was sure that whatever course the noble Lord followed he would be guided by feelings of the highest probity; and that whatever office he filled would be elevated by his high character. This country had altered its views as to the course we should take with regard to Turkey, and the old traditionary policy of Lord Palmerston in reference to that country was no longer approved by this nation. He (Mr. Darby Griffith) was favourable to the general principle of the suzerainty of the Porte, especially when it was exercised in accordance with the wishes of the population immediately affected. The province of Servia, he believed, was disposed to be as favourable and friendly to the Porte as any part of the contiguous dominions. It was therefore a most absurd anomaly to encourage the maintenance of the fortress of Belgrade at an annual cost of several hundred thousand pounds. It was an easy thing to say that this country had no right to make such a recommendation; but the Porte was quite aware that in giving advice we were the only disinterested Power, and therefore any suggestions wo might offer on this or other points, though at the moment it might be inexpedient to act upon them, ultimately would always be attended to. He did not expect that the noble Lord would be able to give him a categorical answer, for he was well aware of the difficulties attendant upon this question. The late Secretary for Foreign affairs and the hon. Member for Wick took a very sanguine view of Turkish affairs, and since the Crimean war that nation, partly under our auspices and partly under our advice, had borrowed at least £50,000,000. We had led them on till at last they had ended in bankruptcy; at least, they were unable to pay interest on their Consolidés, the dividends on which had now been postponed to the 10th of October, mean- 1324 ing, he supposed, the Greek Kalends. He could not help taking that opportunity of referring to the festive gathering in connection with a new Liberal club held at Richmond on Saturday last, on which occasion the noble Lord the head of the late Government—his health having been very appropriately given—made some remarks which attracted considerable attention. He said—
It was, perhaps, natural that Austria, having by a very equivocal treaty in the year 1798 obtained the government of Venetia, should be determined not to yield it except to force. That, for my part, I can well make allowance for and forgive; but it does seem to me intolerable that, being engaged in war against Italy, the Emperor of Austria should have proposed to give up Venetia, not to Italy, but to the Emperor of the French. The Italians have felt that insult very deeply. No doubt the Emperor of the French, anxious for peace, actuated, I have no doubt, by the best motives, proposed an armistice to Italy and to Prussia; but the terms did not look promising. They could not but be distasteful to Italy; and for my part I regret that, however creditable on the part of the Emperor of the French that offer might be, the English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have gone shares in that proposition, and thus done that which must be offensive to the Italian people.He confessed that when, from the Moniteur, the announcement was flashed over all Europe that Venetia had been ceded to France, he did feel apprehensive that the new Government, taking office in the midst of rapidly changing events, might have been entrapped into some honest but indiscreet expression of opinion. He did not, however, suppose that any such false step had been taken on the part of the English Government. Thinking it right that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have the opportunity of making such explanation as he thought fit upon the point, he begged to put the question of which he had given notice; and he hoped that the noble Lord would be able to state that he had not committed himself to any proceeding such as the late Prime Minister attributed to him.
LORD STANLEYI think my hon. Friend can hardly desire that on this occasion I should go into any lengthened statement of. Foreign Affairs. The first Question of which he has given notice I can answer very briefly. He asks whether the Porte has consented to the acknowledgment of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern as Hospodar of the Danubian Principalities. The Porte has not recognized the Prince in that position; but negotiations are at pre- 1325 sent proceeding between the Government of the Sultan and that of the Principalities, and I have good hope—though one can never speak with certainty of a matter which is still undecided—that before long these negotiations will end, and end in a most satisfactory manner. With regard to the question relating to Servia, I can only speak as to what has occurred while I have been in office, and during that time no question whatever has come before me with respect to the relations of Servia with the Porte. Whenever such a question does arise I will give it my best consideration. With regard to the other and far more important matter to which my hon. Friend alluded, I explained as fully as it was in my power to do on Friday night what was the position in which the Government stood in regard to the recent negotiations. It is not the fact that we proposed or accepted any proposition for joint or separate mediation; it is not the fact that we agreed with the French Government as to any preliminaries or terms of peace; nor has such mediation been suggested by Austria. All we did was to support a simple proposition for an armistice in order that all parties to the Conference might have time and opportunity to consider the new position in which they stood, so as, if possible, to substitute negotiation for bloodshed. I do not think that was an unreasonable proposition; because, since the war began, in the course of a very few days, Austria had abandoned her claim to Venetia, and a great and decisive battle had been fought in Bohemia, which had completely altered the position relatively of the parties. Under these circumstances, it was only a matter of common sense that if any prospect existed of mediation being accepted, the neutral Powers should endeavour to give time and opportunity for such mediation to take place, each party recognizing the entirely new position in which it was placed by the events of the war. That proposal was not successful; but I am happy to say that an armistice for five days has been agreed to by Prussia and Austria, and I believe that the adhesion of Italy to it may be expected. It is not possible to say what the ultimate results will be; but, in my opinion, the circumstances are such as to give ground for the sanguine hope that this temporary armistice will be extended, and will lead to an early restoration of peace.
§ MR. WHALLEYthought that the statement would be satisfactory to the country, 1326 because there was a fear that England, having intervened in conjunction with France in favour of an armistice, might be induced to go further along with the Emperor of the French. The noble Lord said on Friday night that there never was a European war in which the interests of England were less concerned than in this; but he (Mr. Whalley) ventured to think that there never was a war in which our interests were more concerned. The right of opinion, civil and religious liberty, and what was called the Protestant question, were involved, and it was singular that, however Protestants might happen to be divided in opinion, there was no doubt a remarkable unanimity of Roman Catholic opinion in favour of Austria.